Appeal of BRETT LYNCH, on behalf of his children, from action of the Board of Education of the Shoreham-Wading River Central School District regarding residency.

Decision No. 18,644

(October 28, 2025)

Christopher Ross, Esq., attorney for petitioner

Guercio & Guercio, LLP, attorneys for respondent, LaWanda Williams-Israel, Esq., of counsel

ROSA., Commissioner.--Petitioner appeals the determination of the Board of Education of the Shoreham-Wading River Central School District (“respondent”) that his two children (the “students”) are not district residents.  The appeal must be dismissed.

Prior to the events described herein, petitioner and his children attended respondent’s district.  The record reflects that respondent has previously investigated petitioner’s residency.

Prior to the 2024-2025 school year, petitioner represented that he, his spouse, and the students resided at an address located within the district (the “in-district address”).  However, petitioner had previously submitted a parenting plan to respondent indicating that the students spent half of their time with his spouse at an address outside of the district (the “out-of-district address”).  Based on this discrepancy, respondent surveilled the in-district address on nine occasions between May 2024 and April 2025 but did not observe the students.  Respondent also surveilled the out-of-district address on five dates during this timeframe but, similarly, did not observe the students.

On May 15, 2025, petitioner met with two district employees to discuss his residency.  Petitioner declined to answer several questions posed to him during this meeting.  He also continued to offer contradictory explanations as to whether his spouse resided at the in- or out-of-district address.[1] 

By letter dated May 22, 2025, respondent informed petitioner of its determination that the students did not reside within the district.  Respondent indicated that its determination was based, in part, on numerous contradictory statements and discrepancies.  This appeal ensued.  Petitioner’s request for interim relief was denied on July 21, 2025.

Petitioner argues that he submitted sufficient documentary evidence to prove that the students reside at the in-district address.  He argues that statements “allegedly” made by him at the May 15, 2025 meeting should be afforded little weight as he was “understandably exhausted [and] frustrated” by the district’s residency investigation.  Petitioner seeks a determination that the students are district residents.

Respondent argues that its determination is supported by the evidence in the record, including its surveillance and petitioner’s refusal to answer pertinent questions concerning his residency.

Education Law § 3202 (1) provides, in pertinent part, that “[a] person over five and under twenty-one years of age who has not received a high school diploma is entitled to attend the public schools maintained in the district in which such person resides without the payment of tuition.”  The purpose of this provision is to limit a school district’s obligation to provide tuition-free education to students whose parents or legal guardians reside within the district, as a child’s residence is presumed to be that of his or her parents or legal guardians (Appeal of Powell, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,320; Appeal of Polynice, 48 id. 490, Decision No. 15,927; see Catlin v Sobol, 77 NY2d 552, 559-560 [1991]).  “Residence” for purposes of Education Law § 3202 is established by physical presence as an inhabitant within the district and intent to remain (Longwood Cent. School Dist. v Springs Union Free School Dist., 1 NY3d 385, 389 [2004]; Appeal of Powell, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,320).

A residency determination will not be set aside unless it is arbitrary and capricious (Appeal of Powell, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,320; Appeal of White, 48 id. 295, Decision No. 15,863).  In an appeal to the Commissioner, the petitioner has the burden of demonstrating a clear legal right to the relief requested (Appeal of Powell, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,320; Appeal of White, 48 id. 295, Decision No. 15,863).

Petitioner has not met his burden of proving that the students reside within respondent’s district.  As evidence, petitioner submits copies of his driver’s license, voter registration card, public library card, two utility bills, and four pay statements, each of which associated his name with the in-district address.  This documentary evidence is unpersuasive when weighed against respondent’s surveillance and other evidence (see Appeal of Mauro, 58 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,494; Appeal of Brown, 54 id., Decision No. 16,644; Appeal of Gay, 54 id., Decision No. 16,636).  Petitioner has provided no explanation as to why the students were not observed at the in-district address on nine occasions between May 2024 and April 2025.  Similarly, he does not attempt to explain or reconcile the numerous evasive and contradictory statements regarding his family’s residency.[2]  As such, respondent’s determination cannot be considered arbitrary or capricious.

I have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

END OF FILE